The Raider Fedora from a Jacket Guy...

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:43 am

_ wrote:Yeah, gents... It sounds "wrong" but my old friend, Michaelson, is right. Dean-to-nuts.

You work on "my" (LFL/Amblin/or just about any corporation) project, and all workproduct - including thoughts related to that project are the property of the project. You no longer have any ability to act as an individual or have a thought that belongs to yourself if it is related in any way to my intellectual property or a related project.

Likewise with fan creations. Associate it with Indy and you may as well put a bow on it. You've given your work and any real rights to LFL. George owns anything "Indy."

George owns ALL of this. Period. We operate out here strictly at his whim. All content - including what I am writing now and every dotted-i and crossed-t on the forum or elsewhere is the property of George. Really.

We learned this a long time before CS. If the thought moved him he could shut this and every other site like it down tomorrow. If the thought moved him he can get access to any and all information that passes through this site without notifying the "owners" of the site. This is because he owns anything Indy. Anything. Period.

It's why it is so amusing to hear Peter Botwright say he owns the jacket design. Even if he did what he says (which he didn't) he owns nothing.

Thank you, old friend. My point exactly.

HIGH regard! Michaelson

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:07 am

You work on "my" (LFL/Amblin/or just about any corporation) project, and all workproduct - including thoughts related to that project are the property of the project. You no longer have any ability to act as an individual or have a thought that belongs to yourself if it is related in any way to my intellectual property or a related project.

Then I stand (actually sit) corrected. Remind me never, ever, ever to get on Lucas' bad side. I'm quickly reaching the understanding that he is the closest thing to a deity on the actual earth that we have.

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:12 am

Not really. If you put it on the level of any creative working professional, ALL individuals who create items (and that's any manufacturer in the world) are owed this through copyright/trademark law protection, and contractual agreement.

He's no different than any other business man working in the world....we just know more about his products than most.

Regards! Michaelson

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:25 am

_ wrote:Ian caught me on Skype this morning with a nice tidbit. The lids were fawn.

In reading my planners, I see I received a call from HJ the day following Steven's and Harrison's shopping excursion. Mr. Swales asked to confirm the color listed on the hat box from the first hat. I instructed him that it was listed as "Fawn." Mr. Swales wanted to ensure that they filled the order with the proper color.
Glad I have both fawn and sable from AB...

This information made me smile. YEARS ago when _ and Fedora were doing the first experimentation with hats to replace the Stetson/Miller's we were all 'stuck' with, the very first hat they tried was an Akubra Campdraft 'featherweight' that had 3 vent holes on each side of the crown. Fedora had a LOT of fun trying to figure out how to cover the vents with a ribbon.

Anyway, the color they chose was......fawn!

After showing their results to the community (Indyfan at the time, and then COW), folks liked what they had done, but they were told again and again the color was wrong.

I'm being polite here. They were verbally tarred and feathered, as it were.....

Fedora then moved on to sable, and _ went down the dark path of the jacket

....but isn't it interesting they nailed it first time out of the box, and no one believed them?

Regards! Michaelson

binkmeisterRick · Post by **binkmeisterRick** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:49 am

They WERE digging in the right place!

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:51 am

Yep, but everyone else was holding the map upside down and sent the crowd to the other side of the dig site!

Regards! Michaelson

IndianaChris711 · Post by **IndianaChris711** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:19 am

So are we going to see a line of fawn fedora's from AB or Penman? Just curious. Getting the right fawn color though would be difficult, like Steve said earlier we don't know what factory they got it from or what color of fawn they used. Very interesting though after all these years people were saying the hats color is sable.

IndianaChris

Indiana Bugs · Post by **Indiana Bugs** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:44 am

_ wrote:Likewise with fan creations. Associate it with Indy and you may as well put a bow on it. You've given your work and any real rights to LFL. George owns anything "Indy."

George owns ALL of this. Period. We operate out here strictly at his whim. All content - including what I am writing now and every dotted-i and crossed-t on the forum or elsewhere is the property of George. Really.

We learned ths a long time before CS. If the thought moved him he could shut this and every other site like it down tomorrow. If the thought moved him he can get access to any and all information that passes through this site without notifying the "owners" of the site. This is because he owns anything Indy. Anything. Period.

It's why it is so amusing to hear Peter Botwright say he owns the jacket design. Even if he did what he says (which he didn't) he owns nothing.

Pardon my asking but does that mean that anything anyone writes about anything, such as a review, is owned by the people who also own what is being reviewed? Iow, when Ebert writes a review of a movie, that review is owned by the people who own the rights to the movie. That doesnt sound correct to me.

Arent we allowed to say and/or write what we want, as long as we dont profit from said commentary, or commit slander and/or libel?

Or is it the mere fact that this site's name is a term owned by LFL make what you said true? Im a member of an automotive site that originally had the car's name in the title, but was changed because of legal reasons. Is it the name of this site that makes the difference here? Is that what it boils down to?

Puppetboy · Post by **Puppetboy** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:59 am

So all artists employed by a film company are unable to talk about what they do (or did)? I'm confused. Every person involved with a film production has to be hit with a neuralizer before they leave the building? If you interview a munchkin for a newspaper and he relates his experience filming "The Wizard of Oz", the interview is the property of MGM? If that is the case, then I stand extremely corrected!

Or are we talking about "ownership" in the sense that we aren't allowed to put this information in a tangible form, like a book (or website)? THAT I can understand.

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:18 pm

Puppetboy wrote: If you interview a munchkin for a newspaper and he relates his experience filming "The Wizard of Oz", the interview is the property of MGM? If that is the case, then I stand extremely corrected!

Interesting example choice. Copyright protection lasts 50 years. The copyright protection for the book 'Wizard of Oz' ended in the late 1950's, opening up a world of new games, books and toys based on the book, and completely out of the control of the author or his decendents/estate.

MGM's copyright of the film ended in 1989, but there were renewals placed to protect their images, but not necessarily the information beyond that. If you do some reading, you'll find there are very few interviews of the cast prior to 1989, and none that were not under the control of MGM. After that date, interviews started rolling out.

For the 75th anniversery, interviews of those involved (left alive) were everywhere, including the last living actors who played munchkins. One even appeared in his original costume of 'Mayor of Munchkin City' (remember that guy? Poor fellow is in his 90's and kept falling asleep during the interview!

It's available on YouTube. ), and was recorded separate of MGM participation.

It's all based on where a company stands in copyright protection, and ALL this is considered intellectual property. LFL is well within their rights, considering Indy was originally copyrighted in 1981. They still have 21 years left under that protection.

Regards! Michaelson

Post by **Indiana Jeff** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:28 pm

Michaelson wrote:Not really. If you put it on the level of any creative working professional, ALL individuals who create items (and that's any manufacturer in the world) are owed this through copyright/trademark law protection, and contractual agreement.

He's no different than any other business man working in the world....we just know more about his products than most.

Regards! Michaelson

Disney has LFL beat hands down when it comes to protecting their IP. I had a friend working at a day care center where there was a Mickey and friends mural. The mural was the background for a picture on the center's website and somehow came to the attention of Disney and the center was sent a C&D letter requiring them to paint over the mural.

If you worked on the production and as part of the production this design was created, you may copy it and sell it but any claims are limited to actual events and still subject to approval by the owners of the related intellectual property – short of claiming the design is yours. This is because the design process was covered by the relationship with the production company and the presumption that the design owes its existence to the production. But, because the images of the production are intended for the public domain, they may be copied. Again, claims are subject to actual events.

Didn't Steve and Marc go through this? They got C&D letters and had to change their websites to list they had made the hats for CS (statement of fact), but couldn't advertise as an 'official' Indy hat (would need the tacit approval of LFL)?

By the by, and while running the risk of overstepping my bounds, as previously stated there's gold here and eventually the traffic of active posting will slow down. Perhaps a sticky is in order to prevent this thread from sinking into the abyss?

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:31 pm

Disney is a power unto itself. Any business that can move Congress to change the law to protect their trademark image of Mickey Mouse can move mountains.

Yes, Steve and Marc got letter, but as I recall the lawyers were pretty well told to stuff it, as they HAD provenance and MADE the CS hats. The lawyers quickly backed away.

The same thing happened when U. S. Wings was approached and they produced the mysterous 'letter' of agreement between Neil Cooper and LFL for Raiders.

Regards !Michaelson

Puppetboy · Post by **Puppetboy** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:40 pm

As my Dad would say, "Well, ya larn somethin' new every day!" Thanks for that.

The tradition of opinions and editorials have a long standing place of reverance in western culture. As they stand they are considered free speech

That's my gap - where's the line between free speech and IP? Is Deb Nadoolman allowed to discuss "Raiders" at Comicon? I heard her on a panel of costume designers who were all discussing their film/television work. I'm just trying to sort this out in my mind (well, what's left of it).

But our support comes with no rights.

Understood.

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:47 pm

Puppetboy wrote: That's my gap - where's the line between free speech and IP? Is Deb Nadoolman allowed to discuss "Raiders" at Comicon? I heard her on a panel of costume designers who were all discussing their film/television work. I'm just trying to sort this out in my mind (well, what's left of it).

I'm only offering my opinion here, so take it for what it's worth.

It would depend on how the contract was written between DN and LFL, I suppose. The contract could have had a rider that stated that all intellectual property regading Indy was LFL's, but any work done by DN as a professional costumer was protected as her creations, and therefore she could freely discuss them outside of LFL. Who knows?

That, and the fact that she is married to John Landis, a powerhouse in his own right in Hollywood, who knows how many times things like this are winked at as, though outside the 'law of the land', it's up to the owner of the copyright to exercise their 'right of protection'.

As _ has said so eloquently over the years, to paraphrase, "It all depends on choosing what hill is worth dying on!"

Once again we find ourselves back at that 'what ever occurs is at the pleasure of Mr. Lucas'. The franchise is HIS sandbox.

Regards !Michaelson

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:09 pm

_ wrote:Yeah, gents... It sounds "wrong" but my old friend, Michaelson, is right. Dean-to-nuts.

You work on "my" (LFL/Amblin/or just about any corporation) project, and all workproduct - including thoughts related to that project are the property of the project. You no longer have any ability to act as an individual or have a thought that belongs to yourself if it is related in any way to my intellectual property or a related project.

Likewise with fan creations. Associate it with Indy and you may as well put a bow on it. You've given your work and any real rights to LFL. George owns anything "Indy."

George owns ALL of this. Period. We operate out here strictly at his whim. All content - including what I am writing now and every dotted-i and crossed-t on the forum or elsewhere is the property of George. Really.

...................

Michaelson better be alert or he'll find you've packed him up with the rest of your info you are sending to the archive.

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:12 pm

I'm sure they're so aware of me, it's not even funny!

Considering it's their property, so be it. I've enjoyed AND appreciated the ride all these years.....

Regards! Michaelson

Puppetboy · Post by **Puppetboy** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:33 pm

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:34 pm

binkmeisterRick · Post by **binkmeisterRick** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:44 pm

Wow. No fedora anywhere? Even walking around? That kinda stinks. Good thing he wasn't Indy in just his skivvies, else he'd be chaffing like a mother...

Puppetboy · Post by **Puppetboy** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:53 pm

Wasn't it Adam West who would wear his bat suit to visit kids in the hospital? Am I rembering that right? Those were different times...

DR Ulloa · Post by **DR Ulloa** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 2:15 pm

What about his appearance on the Nickelodeon award show? He wore a fedora then and it was a DP. He wore it with a t shirt and jeans. Shouldn't that have been an AB then if he is Indy when he puts on a fedora? Did he have to ask Uncle George permission before putting the hat on? I don't doubt it but it sounds extreme.

Dave

IndianaChris711 · Post by **IndianaChris711** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 2:19 pm

DR Ulloa wrote:What about his appearance on the Nickelodeon award show? He wore a fedora then and it was a DP. He wore it with a t shirt and jeans. Shouldn't that have been an AB then if he is Indy when he puts on a fedora? Did he have to ask Uncle George permission before putting the hat on? I don't doubt it but it sounds extreme.

Dave

I don't know if it was an AB, plus I thought he got slimed, that would be a nice way to get a Fedora dirty. I guess every time he wears the fedora we should call him Indiana or Dr. Jones.

IndianaChris

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 2:34 pm

Puppetboy wrote:Wasn't it Adam West who would wear his bat suit to visit kids in the hospital? Am I rembering that right? Those were different times...

You may be thinking of Clayton Moore and his Lone Ranger costume.

the studio went after him for doing it and he was barred from wearing the mask

Lawsuit over public appearances

In 1979, the owner of the Ranger character, Jack Wrather, obtained a court order prohibiting Moore from making future appearances as The Lone Ranger. Wrather anticipated making a new film version of the story, and did not want the value of the character being undercut by Moore's appearances. Also, Wrather did not want to encourage the belief that the 65-year-old Moore would be playing the role in the new picture. This move proved to be a public relations disaster. Moore responded by changing his costume slightly and replacing the mask with similar-looking wraparound sunglasses, and by counter-suing Wrather. He eventually won the suit, and was able to resume his appearances in costume, which he continued to do until shortly before his death. For a time he worked in publicity tie-ins with the Texas Rangers baseball team. (Wrather's planned motion picture remake, The Legend of the Lone Ranger, was released in 1981 and was a critical and commercial failure.)

Puppetboy · Post by **Puppetboy** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 2:43 pm

Thanks, yes, I think it was Clayton Moore I had in mind. I did just a little reading on Adam West, though, and found that he did public appearances after Batman - it didn't say if it was in costume or not.

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 2:44 pm

Puppetboy wrote:Thanks, yes, I think it was Clayton Moore I had in mind. I did just a little reading on Adam West, though, and found that he did public appearances after Batman - it didn't say if it was in costume or not.

Apparently this guy did too.

http://www.batfriend.com/batfans/wally/wally_intro.htm

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 2:54 pm

_ wrote: He must have permission from George to wear a fedora. He was supposed to wear one in Bladerunner. But, no - if Harrison Ford is wearing a fedora, he IS Indiana Jones. Period. It's in his contract. It even survives him...

Are you supposing this or do you know this? I'm asking because from what I've heard in Blade Runner, Ridley Scott wanted him to wear a hat but Ford asked not to just because he had already done it in Raiders and would be reminding too much of it (so instead he shaved -almost- his head)... didn't state any legal contract reason but maybe they can't say stuff like that in interviews... that's why I'm asking if you know it for a fact or if it's just supposition, being a very moderate Blade Runner fan I'm rather curious.

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:24 pm

_ wrote:I sorta laugh because at the time Harrison was not a big star yet. Heck, he was Plan B! I can imagine George worrying that his carpenter would be doing kiddy birthday parties in Calabasas dressed as Indiana Jones and George wanted a cut...

Don't laugh too much about that. Keep in mind, GEORGE was still finding his way around Hollywood at the time. Maybe he thought if things didn't work out, that birthday party cut might just pay the electric bill or put groceries on the table that month.

Regards !Michaelson

binkmeisterRick · Post by **binkmeisterRick** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 3:26 pm

I can just imagine him having to live off his lounge act.

Hollowpond · Post by **Hollowpond** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:19 pm

binkmeisterRick wrote:I can just imagine him having to live off his lounge act.

Boy its easy to tell Bink is back...

There were 77.78% less random pictures posted while he was gone.

Travis

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:33 pm

Hollowpond · Post by **Hollowpond** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:36 pm

Who do you think is responsible for the remaining 22.22%

Travis

Post by **Holt** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:49 pm

oh, a few comes to my mind

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:57 pm

Back to the topic at hand - it's simply not true that past employees of a production or project can't speak about it afterwards if they haven't signed an NDA. Anyone with any experience employing people in a creative industry knows this. I find it bizarre that it would be suggested otherwise.

It definitely wouldn't stop _ from providing evidence of his discussions with such people, that's for sure. Taking things at face value, in what conceivable way could it be a problem?

Post by **Mike** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:39 pm

_ wrote:
Erri wrote:
_ wrote: He must have permission from George to wear a fedora. He was supposed to wear one in Bladerunner. But, no - if Harrison Ford is wearing a fedora, he IS Indiana Jones. Period. It's in his contract. It even survives him...
Are you supposing this or do you know this? I'm asking because from what I've heard in Blade Runner, Ridley Scott wanted him to wear a hat but Ford asked not to just because he had already done it in Raiders and would be reminding too much of it (so instead he shaved -almost- his head)... didn't state any legal contract reason but maybe they can't say stuff like that in interviews... that's why I'm asking if you know it for a fact or if it's just supposition, being a very moderate Blade Runner fan I'm rather curious.
I heard the story differently - both at the time and then as recalled by two of the principles.

I've heard it different as well. Scott has stated in interviews that he had the "Philip Marlow" vision in mind, but visited Harrison on the set of Raiders and thought "well ----, there goes the fedora." Not sure which version of Blade Runner that interview is on, but its in there. I've paraphrased, of course. It may also be in the book about the making of BR, "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner".

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:40 pm

Yojimbo Jones wrote:Back to the topic at hand - it's simply not true that past employees of a production or project can't speak about it afterwards if they haven't signed an NDA. Anyone with any experience employing people in a creative industry knows this. I find it bizarre that it would be suggested otherwise.

No one HAS suggested otherwise, YJ.

Any subcontractor who works for a contracted creative company is also bound by the NDA signed for by that original contractor. This includes all their employees. It's all part of the same contract.

If you also read _'s remarks about the situation during CS, anyone within half a mile of the set was required to sign an NDA, REGARDLESS of their job, and if they didn't, they were escorted off the property or arrested for trespass.

This is standard practice on any film for any participant, be they creative participants or the caterer. Everyone signs an NDA.

Hopefully some of our CS stunt men (nick?) here can chime in and concur.

Regards !Michaelson

Canada Jones · Post by **Canada Jones** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:53 pm

Erri wrote:
Are you supposing this or do you know this? I'm asking because from what I've heard in Blade Runner, Ridley Scott wanted him to wear a hat but Ford asked not to just because he had already done it in Raiders and would be reminding too much of it (so instead he shaved -almost- his head)... didn't state any legal contract reason but maybe they can't say stuff like that in interviews... that's why I'm asking if you know it for a fact or if it's just supposition, being a very moderate Blade Runner fan I'm rather curious.

I read the same thing in a book about HF. No mention of anything legal. In reference to the post about The Lone Ranger - I also did read about Clayton Moore being forbidden to wear the Lone Ranger mask and he had to go around wearing Elvis type sunglasses to try to recreate the look. If I remember correctly this all happened around the time they were releasing the new Lone Ranger movie and I guess were hoping to reignite the franchise.

best
Canada

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:51 pm

Maybe this is an episode of lost in translation. My point of my first post was that we have had a watershed of new info coming out from _ and other quarters about the making of the Raiders fedora and the jacket. This isn't encapsulated anywhere but is spread out over a series of threads. I fervently hope (and assume that this is being done) that all of this information will be used to update the main site's jacket and fedora sections either by _, if he has the time, or his designee. This information he's dug up is far too valuable to everyone here to lose. Since I don't think I'm a moron (would you know if you were

), I know that there is some stuff he can't go into or show us because it would jeopardize his standing or his livelihood. I don't know anyone who would want that. But, if there is some stuff that he can show us, that would be terrific from a standpoint of being able to see this stuff that the majority of us don't have access to and to provide "proof" of the claims for those in the future who might not know of _'s standing here.

As for NDAs and the like, I won't argue the point as I don't have enough knowledge to do so intelligently. However, people who worked on Raiders must be able to talk about at least some of what they did as far as the creation of the look we love, because they are talking about it. If there were NDAs as to their not doing so, they wouldn't. I don't doubt that LFL owns the fruition of their mental endeavors but I don't think he owns their memories or what they can talk about the experience if it isn't covered in an NDA. If he does, obviously, he's generously not exercising that right as the site is here and _ is telling us what they remember.

As for Crystal Skull, I don't doubt AT ALL that there was heavy security. But, again obviously, people are able to talk about their experiences in the creation of the gear now. Tony Nowak told me the first time I ever called him the generalities of how he got the job for the CS jacket. And we know that he goes to the letter by NDAs or his agreements. _ has outright told us how Tony came by the Raiders jacket but Tony won't tell you because he gave his word (and made a bet, if I recall correctly).

The point of this is that there is too much great stuff here brought by _ and others to either leave it in bits and pieces about the site or let it disappear. I'd love to see it consolidated somewhere. And to put my money where my mouth is, if you need a team to do so (the results double-checked, of course), I'd volunteer to be on it.

Forrest For the Trees · Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:12 pm

I get tired of talking about trees with somebody who does not understand forests.

Hey... I resemble that comment.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Post by **Mike** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:12 pm

crismans wrote:I fervently hope (and assume that this is being done) that all of this information will be used to update the main site's jacket and fedora sections either by _, if he has the time, or his designee. This information he's dug up is far too valuable to everyone here to lose.

Fret not, it will be done.

Now to put on the moderator hat…

Enough of trying call out _ on what he can or can't do. He's plainly stated (more than once) what he's willing to divulge. Further attempts will be seen as baiting and warnings and/or suspensions may ensue.

Now back to the topic. If it has run its course, we can shut it down.

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:54 am

_ wrote:I don't think you really expect me to be able to answer specifics like that, ..........

But but, yes we do

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:12 am

Jibes about small ponds aside, allow me to clarify. I was Referring to the era of Raiders and people's ability to refer to their memories.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:06 am

What was weak? Bear in mind I'm not saying you should breach any NDA you have, or that anyone that worked on CS should do so either. I'm not suggesting that NDA's don't exist or that such agreements don't exist.

I'm simply saying that the employees, subcontractors and suppliers of Raiders quite likely didn't. I'm also simply stating that just because people aren't allowed to profit from a property doesn't mean they can't speak about it. Most laws from Common Law to Copyright are predicated on the idea of damages. Putting aside U.S. issues of free speech, what damages could be sought by a complainant (ie LFL) against a hatter or wardrobe supervisor talking about the stitches in a jacket from 30 years ago. You don't seem to have had a problem talking to them, having them agree to interviews on record; so they obviously weren't fearful of any document barring disussing their memories or thoughts. At the same time, the powers-that-be at LFL don't seem to have an issue with passing this information on via the main site.

What seems to be offensive is the idea of providing documentation of these meetings to the COW "public". Does it belong "in a museum" or to be left with "top men"?

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:37 am

Please read through this thread before continuing this one.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=46168&start=0

Regards! Michaelson

Indiana Joyce · Post by **Indiana Joyce** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:37 pm

_, I for one am glad that you are doing the work you are doing. Am I going to elevate you to godhood? Nope, we all have flaws. Am I going to tar and feather you for not offering concrete proof? Nope, because as far as I am concerned, and it was touched on in another thread, you have earned trust because you earned the trust of not only your employers, but also several people here. To say that your purveyor of false claims is to also drag several other people thru the mud, and that ain't cool.

I have many questions that arent answered but they dont related to Indy. I and a few people I know have alot of star wars related questions, but Im not going to ask you any of them, because whatever your job is, it isn't to get q and a's from us and pass them on, I understand your doing this because it needs doing, youre available to do it, all parties involved want you to do it, and you like doing it.

So thank you.

Gater · Post by **Gater** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:46 pm

Always remember: If someone asks if you are a God - you say YES!

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:53 pm

Gater wrote:Always remember: If someone asks if you are a God - you say YES!

excellent quotation

Indiana Joyce · Post by **Indiana Joyce** » Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:20 pm

And Crystal Head vodka is a helluva nice drink.

Puppetboy · Post by **Puppetboy** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:43 pm

Much of Ghostbusters came from some real experiences (supposedly) relayed in this book.

Yeah, the special features on the Blu-ray didn't go that far, but those interviewed were clear that Dan was the driving force behind the "technical" details of the ghosts, the equipment, the "theory" of ghost trapping, interdimensional yaddy yaddy yadda. Just listen to all of the "tech" ghost/spirit/demon details crammed into the dialog. I'll bet the historical references are out of his head, too. Very interesting.

Along the same lines, at the time of "Close Encounters" and "ET", wasn't SS a firm believer in aliens? Something I heard him say gave me the impression that he really isn't anymore?

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:50 pm

Along the same lines, at the time of "Close Encounters" and "ET", wasn't SS a firm believer in aliens? Something I heard him say gave me the impression that he really isn't anymore?

But what about inter-dimensional beings?

binkmeisterRick · Post by **binkmeisterRick** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:10 pm

Or getting the thread back on topic? After all, we did open the thread back up thinking there was more to discuss on the topic...